THE SCIENCE AND ART OF PROTEAL THERAPY 147 



latter term of course connotes eosinophiles and basophiles. 

 Very little has been said in recent pages about these two types 

 of leucocytes, beyond noting that they tend to increase under 

 proteal treatment just as do the large monocytes. I have long 

 been disposed to regard the eosinophiles and basophiles as cells 

 of the same order, representing either stages of individual de- 

 velopment or modified condition of chemical composition (say 

 acidity versus alkalinity), in effect no more variant than different 

 specimens of polynuclear leucocytes some of which show clear 

 unstained cytoplasm while others are markedly granular and 

 acidophile. 



I am by no means certain that basophiles and eosinophiles are 

 not to be regarded as matured stages of large monocyte devel- 

 opment. It is at least within the possibility that a monocyte that 

 has ingested a certain amount of protein and transformed it, let 

 us say, into proteose may divide its nucleus and have its enlarged 

 cytoplasm just prior to disruption assume a condition that mod- 

 ifies its staining qualities so that its appearance is greatly modi- 

 fied. On this assumption, the relative scarcity of eosinophiles 

 and basophiles would be explicable on the ground of their relative 

 shortness of individual life, it being assumed that the incidence 

 of the granular condition presages disruption. 



It may be recalled in this connection that the Russian inves- 

 tigators Avrowrow and Timofeeosky have suggested that eosino- 

 philes are only monocytes that have ingested red blood cor- 

 puscles. 



No doubt many objections could be urged against this linking 

 of the large monocyte and the eosinophile and basophile as mem- 

 bers of the same series. I am not aware, however, of any ob- 

 jection that seems insuperable. Meantime the observed coin- 

 cidence between increase of large monocytes and increase of 

 eosinophile and basophiles under proteal treatment (see numer- 

 ous tables in the Monograph), is at least not inconsistent with 

 the assumption. 



It is consonant with what we know of the mutual relations 

 of bodily organs to assume that, even if the above interpretation 

 of the primary action of different types of leucocytes be ac- 

 cepted, it does not follow that any type of leucocyte is abso- 

 lutely restricted in its possible activities to the hydrolyzing of 

 protein products of a particular size. I have already suggested 

 that the stage of decompounding to which a protein molecule 

 may be subjected within the leucocyte may depend to some ex- 

 tent on the amount of pabulum ingested, which in turn would be 

 a function of the abundance of leucocytes on one hand and of 

 protein products in the blood on the other. 



To illustrate my meaning, we might assume that, granted a 



